Dismissed

Krishnamurthy Sivakumar v. the Commissioner of Labour

Madras HC8 Jan 2020WA/3367/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ appeal withdrawn by the appellant, who sought to remove a case officer from a trial due to allegations of malpractice after a favourable order was passed. The Court directed the Registrar-Judicial to maintain seized records and send copies to the Registry while returning originals to the office.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal and C.M.P. were dismissed as withdrawn; records were directed to be maintained by the Registrar-Judicial and originals returned to the concerned office.

Krishnamurthy Sivakumar Vs the Commissioner of Labour — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.01.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.A.P.SAHI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶7

W.A.No.3367 of 2019

¶8

and C.M.P.No.21622 of 2019

¶9

Krishnamurthy Sivakumar .. Appellant/Petitioner -vs1.The Commissioner of Labour, Office of the Commissioner of Labour, Chennai 600 006.

¶10

2.Ms.T.Shanthi, The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Office of the Commissioner of Labour, The Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, Chennai 600 006. 3.The Management of Cognizant Technology Solutions Private Limited, Rep. by its Vice President – Human Resources. .. Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 09.09.2019 passed in W.P.No.26925 of 2019 on the file of this Court.

¶12

Prayer in Writ Petition No.26925 of 2019: Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to transfer the proceedings pending before the 2^nd respondent bearing T.N.S.E.No.01/01/2016 to some other competent authority for expeditious adjudication and disposal within a reasonable time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr.N.L.Rajah Sr. Counsel for Mr.S.Mahesh Kumar

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co. for R-3

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

(Delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶18

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

¶19

2.Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawing the appeal unconditionally.

¶20

3.Learned counsel for the third respondent has invited the attention of the Court to the order passed by the Bench on 06.11.2019. The same is extracted hereinunder:-

¶21

“When the matter is called today, the learned Counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the appeal stating that an order has been passed by the appellate authority in T.S.E.No.1/01/2016 on 18.10.2019.

¶22

2.However, Mr.Anand Gopalan, learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent objected the withdrawal of the appeal stating that the appellant has got a favourable order from the very same authority against whom the appellant made allegations in the earlier hearing and therefore, he intends to withdraw the appeal. Moreover, he pointed out that in the vacation Court, there was an oral observation made by the Court, not to pass any order and inspite of the same, the appellate authority has passed an order. However, the learned Counsel for the appellant denied the same.

¶23

3.It is seen from the records that when the matter was argued on 17.10.2019, Mr.N.L.Raja, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant pleaded for transfer of the case from the very same authority who passed the order stating that bundle was missing with the authority and inspite of the absence of the bundle, hearing took place and therefore, no justice would be done if the same officer is allowed to pass orders. The said submission was recorded and the matter was adjourned today.

¶24

4.In the meantime, the appellate authority has passed an order in favour of the appellant. Hence, Mr.Anand Gopalan, learned Counsel for the third respondent would submit that there is a serious malpractice in the order passed by the authority. Therefore, considering the allegations made by the appellant in the earlier hearing and the way in which the order has now came to be passed by the appellate authority, this Court directs the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Madras to seize all the records including the notes of the stenographer and the hard disk in which the word file has been stored.

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

Further, some sample copies of the orders passed by the appellate authority in similar appeals shall also be seized.

¶27

Call the matter on 08.11.2019.”

¶28

3.The contention of the learned counsel for the third respondent is that pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the records have been made available with the Registrar-Judicial of the High Court.

¶29

4.He also contends that there are certain allegations which deserve to be investigated, inasmuch as it is only after this writ appeal was filed, that an order of transfer of proceedings came to be passed by the officer in question against whom allegations had been made and therefore, the veracity and probative value of that order is yet to be tested on the basis of the records which are lying with the Registrar-Judicial. In view of this, he submits that even if the appellant is praying for withdrawal of the appeal, the rights of the third respondent should be kept preserved to approach the appropriate forum in respect of any such allegations that have been made against the officer concerned.

¶30

5.Having considered the submissions raised, we accept the request of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant to withdraw the Writ Appeal, which is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.

¶31

6.We also direct the Registrar-Judicial to maintain the xerox copy of the entire proceedings and send the originals back to the office concerned from where it had been received. The original records and the CD as well as whatever that has been retrieved by the Registrar, an inventory thereof shall be prepared and the entire records shall be remitted back to the office concerned to be preserved by it with a due receipt of the same. In the event any party chooses to rely on any document or otherwise, it shall be without prejudice to their rights to contest the correctness or otherwise of the proceedings before the officer.

¶32

The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.21622 of 2019 is also dismissed. Sd/-

¶33

Assistant Registrar (Insp-Cell) //True Copy//

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

sra

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶37

¶38

1.The Commissioner of Labour, Office of the Commissioner of Labour, Chennai 600 006.

¶39

2.The Registrar (Judicial), High Court, Madras.

¶40

+1cc to Mr.T.S.Gopalan & Co, Advocate, S.R.No. 2466
+1cc to Mr.Rohini Ravikumar, Advocate, S.R.No. 2882
W.A.No.3367 of 2019
MR(CO)
GN(27/01/2020)

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Krishnamurthy Sivakumar v. the Commissioner of Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnamurthy Sivakumar v. the Commissioner of Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.S.Raghavendran Vs The Registrar General

Excel Engineering Enterprises Vs the General Manager

D.Elisa Vs Dr. Anitha

R.Subramanian Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

A.Rani, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P. Rammesh Vs Rameswara Murugan